• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

John McWhorter on the Dorian Abbot affair:


The University of Chicago’s Dorian Abbot is a climate scientist with some vital observations about the sustainability of life on other planets. He planned to share them at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in its esteemed annual Carlson Lecture. But Abbot has also advocated race-neutral university admissions policies, including co-writing an essay in Newsweek arguing that race-conscious admissions criteria (as well as admission preferences for children of alumni and for athletes) should end.

Abbot’s invitation drew opposition from some students and faculty, and this year’s Carlson Lecture was subsequently canceled. In response, Prof. Robert George, who leads Princeton University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, invited Abbot to speak at Princeton. But M.I.T.’s message had already been sent and seems hard to misinterpret: Abbot was not suitable for general consumption.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/wokeness-america.html
 
I read it, seemed most of your questions had little to do with cancel culture and I felt were probably best answers elsewhere by someone with a greater interest in them.

As a general rule of thumb, if a topic is metaphysically and epistemologically murky, we should probably be less inclined to cancel people.

In which case, the 95% rotten tomatoes score, because everyone loved the special, is a good indication he’ll probably be back again. Unless we’re worried about the next-next-next special, which admittedly, who knows. The nebulous unnamed Chapelle critics cancel culture mob and the dozens of trans rights protesters with tambourines might have gotten their way.

Maybe that’ll make the fired Trump supporters, who undoubtedly also dislike trans people, and the people who know who will literally talk about any other topic but this one, feel better. Dave Chapelle has their back.

As far as bringing Chappelle back, the price needs to be right. Someone released internal figures casting doubt on the profitability of his specials. As far as most the popular comic and the most popular podcaster teaming up for sold shows... right or wrong, the majority of Americans believe there are two genders, so a minority shunning the majority always seemed problematic at first glance. Over-representation in culturally influential industries and institutions helps with the shunning, but also threatens to stir a backlash from majorities feeling put-upon by "the homosexual trans agenda".
 
Everything is fine for the people who are "too big to cancel," as it were. Doesn't help folks like Kathleen Stock or Leslie Neal-Boylan.

Your two examples of "cancel culture" are people, both who had tenure protecting their academic freedom, who voluntarily resigned because they did not like that their public comments invited public criticism.

The "cancel culture" phenomena in a nutshell, powerful people expect their free expression to be above criticism and react extremely poorly when that is not the case. Perhaps people who can't handle the heat should stay out of the kitchen.

The gatekeepers are extremely upset that the unwashed masses are allowed to call them morons.
 
Last edited:
Would it be nearly impossible to make their work lives intolerable?

Depends on what someone considers intolerable. Losing the respect of many of the people you work with and/or students is certainly a reasonable outcome for making public speech. Nobody is entitled to the respect of their peers.
 
Depends on what someone considers intolerable.
How about death threats, campus-wide calls for removal, and your own union throwing you under the bus instead of defending academic freedom?

Losing the respect of many of the people you work with and/or students is certainly a reasonable outcome for making public speech.
Not if the speech is true, or even arguably true. Philosophers are expected to explore such things from all available angles.

ETA: Where are you sourcing the bit about tenure from? I've made a good faith effort to find her tenure status, to no avail.
 
Last edited:
How about death threats, campus-wide calls for removal, and your own union throwing you under the bus instead of defending academic freedom?

Not if the speech is true, or even arguably true. Philosophers are expected to explore such things from all available angles.

ETA: Where are you sourcing the bit about tenure from? I've made a good faith effort to find her tenure status, to no avail.

There isn't academic tenure in the UK. Thatcher got rid of it. There is a distinction between permanent and temporary contracts, where the former is more difficult to obtain and provides reasonable job security. Academic freedom is protected under various laws such as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and s.43 of the Education Act.
 
How about death threats, campus-wide calls for removal, and your own union throwing you under the bus instead of defending academic freedom?

Not if the speech is true, or even arguably true. Philosophers are expected to explore such things from all available angles.

ETA: Where are you sourcing the bit about tenure from? I've made a good faith effort to find her tenure status, to no avail.

The second person you cited, Leslie Neal-Boylan, was tenured faculty and was offered continued employment before she resigned.
 
How about death threats, campus-wide calls for removal, and your own union throwing you under the bus instead of defending academic freedom?

The death threats are the only illegal and fully inappropriate part of that response.

“Cancel culture” is an inevitable and immediate consequence of living in a society that has both free speech and capitalism. It is literally one aspect (exclusively the stick, rather than the carrot) of the “invisible hand of the market.” The only things new about it is applying the term “cancel culture” and then framing it as a scapegoat for the economic consequences of one’s free speech instead of addressing the content of the criticism.
 
The other two examples are expressions of free speech, which I thought you supported.
You need to distinguish here between two types of support.

1) Supporting the legalization of a message (e.g. Nazis holding a rally in Marquette Park in Chicago)

2) Supporting the message itself

One can say "Nazis ought not rally in Marquette Park," without affirming that they ought to be legally sanctioned for doing so.

Similarly, one can say that it was wrong to pursue #StockOut (since Dr. Stock did nothing wrong) while affirming the legal right of students to protest in that manner.
 
As a general rule of thumb, if a topic is metaphysically and epistemologically murky, we should probably be less inclined to cancel people.

The more logically incoherent a belief system, the greater the need to smear and intimidate critics and suppress debate.
 
Last edited:
My inability to correctly read colored lines on a graph aside, that appears to not be the case, or it is decreasingly so. Given the higher number of females to males in the US population, there are probably more trans men than trans women or, again, there will be.

That would be true if males were trans women and females trans men at the same rate, which doesn't appear to be the case. Whether from outside factors (such as cultural) or a quirk of biology that doesn't seem to be true (there is some speculation that fetal development stages lead the apparent disparate rates).

Forgive me if I'm not seeing data in the link that actually address that directly. I'm going on a few smaller research findings that of course suffer from all the problems of studying a very small population that is repressed by threats of violence and accusations their existence is the same as blackface, an inherent transgression against women specifically even from people claiming to be funny allies. The overwhelming reason for 'de-transitioning' given is after all the violence and lack of acceptance from the surrounding community, but that kind of cancellation is fine if people 'don't understand' this human trait.
 
A news story from Canada on how school boards are looking into how to get rid of books claimed to be "...harmful to staff and students."


The Waterloo Region District School Board is undertaking a multi-year review of its library collections to identify and remove any texts deemed “harmful to staff and students.”


Graham Shantz, coordinating superintendent in human resources and equity services outlined the ongoing work during Monday’s board meeting as part of an overview of the board’s 2021-2022 strategic and operational plan.


https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local...-from-regions-public-school-libraries-4551859


At the end of the article it mentions that Margaret Atwoods 'The Handmaids Tale' is one of these books.


This has now led to calls for oversight of the process.


Cindy Watson wants to know more about the public school board's plan to remove certain books from its library collections and is exploring the idea of bringing forward a motion asking for details and public oversight of the process.


At Monday's Waterloo Region District School Board meeting, Graham Shantz, coordinating superintendent in human resources and equity services, explained that some texts in school library collections "are not appropriate at this point” given the progress the board has made in creating an equitable, inclusive and safe learning environment for staff and students.


https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local...c-boards-plan-to-remove-harmful-books-4702502
 
That would be true if males were trans women and females trans men at the same rate, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Historically, yes, which is why there are currently more trans women than trans men. One of the articles I linked above indicated that transition rates have equalized in the last 20 years (I think, I don't recall the exact time frame). Unless those rates change again, we should expect there to be more trans men in absolute numbers because there is a slightly higher proportion of females in the US population.
 
Historically, yes, which is why there are currently more trans women than trans men. One of the articles I linked above indicated that transition rates have equalized in the last 20 years (I think, I don't recall the exact time frame). Unless those rates change again, we should expect there to be more trans men in absolute numbers because there is a slightly higher proportion of females in the US population.

Oh thanks for the reference, I'll have to go back and look. If so it would lend evidence to my suspicion that the differences were do to other pressures (and because it helps confirm my biases, it must be true :p ).

Assuming that rates will stay the same as in any given timeframe is a quick way to extrapolate incorrectly. It reminds me of a 'concern' that happens when suppression of any given trait is reduced. 'People are jumping onto a trend, and the increasing numbers of people who have claim to have it proves it!' It was the 'trans trender' claim, that current numbers increasing beyond the numbers from the recent past prove that people are just choosing to be that way. The same as the claim 'autism didn't exist in my day' and blaming vaccines for 'increasing autism'. The same as the increase in people identifying as homosexual, then bisexual. The same as the increases of people identifying as left handed.

In every case the increase was right after suppression of these traits was reduced. Interestingly some recent research showed that some increased at the same rates before leveling off as each other (left handedness and homosexual iirc).

It is not at all surprising that people with these traits being cancelled less because of them is always framed with the same bad arguments including the claim that others are being 'cancelled' for not being allowed to cancel others for the reasons they used to.

EDIT: 'As more people realize my behavior was wrong and harmful, they put up with it less. Poor persecuted me! They won't let me be wrong and hurt people in peace!'
 
Last edited:
Historically, yes, which is why there are currently more trans women than trans men. One of the articles I linked above indicated that transition rates have equalized in the last 20 years (I think, I don't recall the exact time frame). Unless those rates change again, we should expect there to be more trans men in absolute numbers because there is a slightly higher proportion of females in the US population.
I wonder what would account for those shifting rates.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
I wonder what would account for those shifting rates.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Data is hard to find online. My uninformed rando internet guy guess is that the social acceptability of Tom boys historically has acted as a “good enough” half-measure for folks in the FTM trans closet, where MTF had no such option. There is no similar “Jane girl” option that would not have gotten someone beaten up or killed.
 
You need to distinguish here between two types of support.

1) Supporting the legalization of a message (e.g. Nazis holding a rally in Marquette Park in Chicago)

2) Supporting the message itself

One can say "Nazis ought not rally in Marquette Park," without affirming that they ought to be legally sanctioned for doing so.

Similarly, one can say that it was wrong to pursue #StockOut (since Dr. Stock did nothing wrong) while affirming the legal right of students to protest in that manner.

I’m glad you acknowledge that protest and criticism count as free speech.

Now you need to explain what makes these expressions of free speech problematic in the specific situations you referenced.
 
The trans topic in particular is not just a matter of losing employment, but having a basic conversation. I see people, and know people, who say they're happy to talk politics with friends about all issues except this one, which harkens back to the idea that freedom of speech is related to freedom of thought.

Hey just try having a basic conversation about the blacks or jews and what they deserve and you will find it rather difficult. I mean look at Mel Gibson how he was canceled for a few statements about the jews.

You really think Chapelle could have done that same bit about asians or jews?

How about something truly wrong and outrageous, Eddie Murphy apologizing for hit joke about gay people in the 80's.

https://www.essence.com/celebrity/eddie-murphy-homophobic-content-ignorant/

Gay stereotypes are just funny like black stereotypes, but you do a good old fashion minstrel show to prove that and suddenly you get canceled for no reason.
 
Last edited:
Your two examples of "cancel culture" are people, both who had tenure protecting their academic freedom, who voluntarily resigned because they did not like that their public comments invited public criticism.

"Voluntarily" is technically true. But when retaining their position requires them to hire security guards to protect them from people who are threatening them with harm, and the university seems unable to ensure the basic safety of their professors with tenure... one has to wonder what exactly "voluntarily" means these days.

The university didn't cancel Stock, but the slavering rabid mob sure as hell did.
 
The death threats are the only illegal and fully inappropriate part of that response.

“Cancel culture” is an inevitable and immediate consequence of living in a society that has both free speech and capitalism. It is literally one aspect (exclusively the stick, rather than the carrot) of the “invisible hand of the market.” The only things new about it is applying the term “cancel culture” and then framing it as a scapegoat for the economic consequences of one’s free speech instead of addressing the content of the criticism.

Yeah, I disagree. This is way, way beyond "invisible hand of the market" and all the way into denying a person the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's denying a person the ability to live their lives without threat of harm and harassment.
 
Historically, yes, which is why there are currently more trans women than trans men. One of the articles I linked above indicated that transition rates have equalized in the last 20 years (I think, I don't recall the exact time frame). Unless those rates change again, we should expect there to be more trans men in absolute numbers because there is a slightly higher proportion of females in the US population.

Are you aware that over the past few years, the rate of young females self-identifying as transgender, with no historical expressions of dysphoria or even gender nonconformity, has skyrocketed?

The number of young males identifying as transgender, has risen, but by a much lower margin. The number of middle-aged males identifying as transgender has risen by a material amount.

Why on earth would you expect a behavioral pattern that has historically been overwhelmingly male to equalize in the first place?
 
Are you aware that over the past few years, the rate of young females self-identifying as transgender, with no historical expressions of dysphoria or even gender nonconformity, has skyrocketed?

The number of young males identifying as transgender, has risen, but by a much lower margin. The number of middle-aged males identifying as transgender has risen by a material amount.

Why on earth would you expect a behavioral pattern that has historically been overwhelmingly male to equalize in the first place?
Uh, because of that study I linked to and those reasons I've stated?

What's your source?

ETA: wait, aren't you saying that they are approaching the same rate?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I disagree. This is way, way beyond "invisible hand of the market" and all the way into denying a person the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's denying a person the ability to live their lives without threat of harm and harassment.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time you misunderstood something based on bad assumptions and just made claims without support.
 
Apparently there is a new biography of Anthony Comstock, the behaviours he exhibited in his quest to avoid being triggered into acts of 'self abuse' make an eerie parallel to much of what is now termed 'Cancel Culture.


Robert Corn-Revere’s new book, “The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder: The First Amendment and the Censor’s Dilemma,” follows the evolution of America’s free speech culture from the nineteenth century to the present. He starts that journey with the story of a man named Anthony Comstock.

To students of the First Amendment, Comstock (1844-1915) is a familiar villain, because a surprising amount of America’s free speech movement can be traced back to the uniquely addled psyche of the crusading postal inspector. Comstock is a character so improbable that he would be considered poorly written if fictional, because the absurdity of his life would frustrate the suspension of disbelief.

Comstock was a moral crusader motivated by personal shame. He kept diaries confessing to what most biographers agree was chronic masturbation and crusaded against anything he thought might inspire that self-discovery in others. In the name of that crusade, he would order “obscene” materials and objects, then have the sellers arrested. “Mind of the Censor” recounts the story of how Comstock once pursued a man for over a year, in a chase involving seven cities in three countries, because the offender sold Comstock a single condom. Ever the charmer, he bragged about hounding several of his targets to suicide.


(Emphasis mine)



https://www.thefire.org/the-mind-of...e-infamous-and-often-absurd-anthony-comstock/
 
How about death threats, campus-wide calls for removal, and your own union throwing you under the bus instead of defending academic freedom?

Not if the speech is true, or even arguably true. Philosophers are expected to explore such things from all available angles.

ETA: Where are you sourcing the bit about tenure from? I've made a good faith effort to find her tenure status, to no avail.

Death threats? Meh

Cancel culture ninnies should try being a politician, especially a progressive or a liberal. They receive hundreds of death threats every week. Politicians such as AOC spend the first part of every morning reviewing photos of the people who have made death threats against her.

The death threats are the only illegal and fully inappropriate part of that response.

“Cancel culture” is an inevitable and immediate consequence of living in a society that has both free speech and capitalism. It is literally one aspect (exclusively the stick, rather than the carrot) of the “invisible hand of the market.” The only things new about it is applying the term “cancel culture” and then framing it as a scapegoat for the economic consequences of one’s free speech instead of addressing the content of the criticism.

Yup! Nailed it perfectly... 100% agree!
 
Last edited:
Is this an aspect of our culture which you would like to see changed?

Yes, but not in the way you have deliberately misrepresented it.

I would like to see consequences... REAL consequences for people who make death threats! People who threaten a person's life should not be afforded the protection of free speech laws.
 
Last edited:
Apparently there is a new biography of Anthony Comstock, the behaviours he exhibited in his quest to avoid being triggered into acts of 'self abuse' make an eerie parallel to much of what is now termed 'Cancel Culture.





(Emphasis mine)



https://www.thefire.org/the-mind-of...e-infamous-and-often-absurd-anthony-comstock/

Hard to see how that's relevant. Comstock wielded state power, where most of the complaints around "cancel culture" seem mostly to be rooted in indignation that the unwashed masses might hold strong negative opinions of people who are their betters.
 

Back
Top Bottom